NFP Securities

Atlas Energy Oil and Gas Investments: Risks Investors Should Know Part II

December 17, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

This article follows up on a recent article reported in Reuters concerning Atlas Energy LP’s private placement partnerships in oil and gas. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal allows investors to participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of oil into viable prospects. In addition, Atlas promises to invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors.

In the last article we explored how the house seems more likely to win on these deals over investors. But beyond the inherent risks with speculating on oil and gas and unknown oil deposits most investors don’t realize the deals are often unfair to investors. In a normal speculative investment as the investment risk goes up the investor demands greater rewards to compensate for the additional risk. However, with oil and gas private placements the risks are sky high and the rewards simply don’t match up.

In order to counter this criticism, issuers say that the tax benefits of their deals where the investor can write off more than 90 percent of their initial outlay the year they make it helps defray the risk and increase the value proposition. First, the same tax advantage claims are often nominal compared to the principal risk of loss of the investment as seen by Puerto Rican investors in the UBS Bond Funds who have now seen their investments decline by 50% or more in some cases. Second, often times brokers sell oil and gas investments indiscriminately to the young and old who have lower incomes and cannot take advantage of the tax benefits.

Atlas Energy Oil and Gas Investments: A Risky Proposition Part I

December 16, 2014 | by Staff Attorney

As recently reported in Reuters, Atlas Energy LP has marketed itself to investors as a way to get into the U.S. energy boom. By contributing at least $25,000 in a private placement partnership that will drill for oil and gas in states such as Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania and share in revenues generated from the wells. Atlas Resources LLC, a subsidiary the energy group, has filed documents with the SEC for Atlas Resources Series 34-2014 LP stating that it seeks to raise as much as $300 million by Dec. 31 of 2014. The deal sounds good when pitched: participate in investments where advances in drilling technology have turned previously inaccessible reservoirs of fossil fuels into potentially viable prospects and to boot Atlas will invest up to $145 million of its own capital alongside investors. Through this method and similar deals, oil and gas projects have issued nearly 4,000 private placements since 2008 seeking to raise as much as $122 billion.

But before you take the plunge a review of the Atlas’s offering memorandum reveals some red flags and given Atlas’ past failure rate investors should think twice. First, up to $45 million of the money raised will be paid to Atlas affiliate Anthem Securities that will then be turned over to as commissions to broker-dealers who pitch the deal to investors. Up to $39 million more will be used to buy drilling leases from another affiliate. Think investors will get a fair price on the leases when Atlas controls both sides of the deal? More conflicts ahead as Atlas affiliated suppliers may also get up to $53 million for buying drilling and transport equipment. Next, an additional $8 million of Atlas’s investment is a 15 percent markup on estimated equipment costs. Finally, Atlas will pay itself nearly $52 million in various other fees and markups.

In sum, at least 40% of Atlas’s $145 million investment alongside mom and pop goes right back to the company. In addition, Atlas’ profits don’t stop there, when the venture starts generating revenue Atlas is entitled to 33% before accounting for those payments and markups. In the end, not much of a risk at all for Atlas.

FINRA Files Complaint Against David Mickelson Over Private Placement Sales

August 24, 2013 | by Staff Attorney

David Mickelson has been accused by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) of improperly selling approximately $8.3 million worth of various private placements to at least 71 customers without informing his brokerage firm (a practice known as “selling away“).

From 2004 through May 2011, Mickelson was associated with NFP Securities, Inc. (NFP). Mickelson’s private placement sales during this time included investments in Micro Pipe Fund I, LLC (Micro Pipe Fund), The Nutmeg Fund/Michael Fund LLLP, The Nutmeg/Fortuna Fund, LP, the Nutmeg/Patriot Fund, LLLP, and Lone Wolf, Inc. FINRA alleged that Mickelson created Micro Pipe Capital Management, LLC, Mickelson Investment Management, LLC, Hannahlu Ventures, LP, and DFM Agency, LLC in order to manage the various private placement offerings.

In order to promote his private placements, Mickelson allegedly marketed Micro Pipe Fund and other investments using misleading websites and advertisements communicated to customers using email accounts not monitored by NFP. Mickelson’s websites included: mickelsoninvestmentmanagement.com/mickinvest.com; astuteasset.com; and mickelsonlife.com. These websites contained securities-related communications including detailed discussions of private investment in public equity (PIPE) funds.

Customer Complaints Brought Against Andrew Rosenberg, Stuart Horowitz, NFP Securities, and Securities America Concerning Improper Investments

April 6, 2012 | by Staff Attorney

Andrew Rosenberg and Stuart Horowitz have been accused of selling unsuitable illiquid real estate investments through Andrew Stuart Asset Management, while be associated with NFP Securities, Inc. and Securities America Inc. These real estate investments include the Hennessy Financial Monthly Income Club also known as Capital Solutions Monthly Income Fund (Capital Solutions), Capital Solutions preferred Stock, True North Finance Preferred Stock (Capital Solutions), Warsowe Acquisitions Corp. Series 2 Debentures, Inland America Real Estate Trust, and G REIT, Inc.

The brokers allegedly told their customers that Capital Solutions was a “low risk investment” and it guaranteed a steady return through “short term secured loans.” The brokers also represented that Capital Solutions fund offered investors 12% returns. In one complaint, the brokers allegedly made representations that they were offering low risk investments to a 63-year-old father of five. The brokers went on to say that they too had their investments in Capital Solutions, in order to lure the client to invest. The client ultimately invested $300,000 into Capital Solutions.

Despite the broker’s statements, the investments were high risk and illiquid. In fact, the Capital Solutions (a/k/a Hennessey Fund) was a unregistered hedge fund that was involved in risky real estate loans. In September 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued the Hennessey Fund for being a Ponzi Scheme, whereby old investors in the Hennessey Fund were being paid by new investors. The case is, SEC v. True North Finance Corporation, f/k/a CS Financing Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-3995-DWF/JJK, (D. Minn).